Their First Two Albums Were Better

Are you tired of hearing this played-out unoriginal mundane hipster cliche?
This phrase is literally applied to almost every indie band. There are few indie/alternative bands that do manage to escape this empty criticism.
For example, for Radiohead, Pablo Honey and The Bends received critical and commercial success, and subsequently every Radiohead album since have received high-praise and commercial success. But Radiohead’s first two albums also come from a previous generation, when the entire body of indie music fans were less pretentious and narcissistic.

Animal Collective’s first two albums were very underground and limited copies of them were available. Their popularity grew with the release of each album. They are one of the most cherished bands amongst indie music fans, but they conveniently escape the “first two album” scrutiny.

This “first two albums is better” cliche is SO commonly used. What’s really going on here? Is literally every other band putting out music that decrease in quality after the debut and sophomore releases or are these “fans” naive and juvenile?

Most people are well aware that evolution is a natural process in life. None of us are really the same people we were 10 years ago, if not in regards to maturity then in regards to physical development. If people grow, develop, and mature through different phases of their life, then why in the world would a band be any different?

Do you honestly expect a band to put out the same album over and over and over and over again. If you’re not complaining about them changing their sound, then you’ll complain about all of their material sounding the same. If the quality and artistic or creative aesthetics are still present in the music then what is the big deal?

Who really has the problem- the band who creates their own art how they want to or the “fan” who complains from the sideline?

Why are indie music fan so deathly terrified of change?

Is it selfish for a “fan” to demand a band to hold on to one monotonous sound for its entire career to appease them?

Re: Their First Two Albums Were Better

Radiohead was kind of like a Britpop band. In fact, I think it's okay to consider that they were a Britpop band in the beginning. And Pulp and Blur's first albums were also not as appreciated as their later albums.

Originally Posted by canexplain

I try to be politically pc more than most here: As a dude, anyone who could put a shark up a gals pc body, is pretty creepy, different and interesting. Just saying big time ..... cr****

Re: Their First Two Albums Were Better

Originally Posted by rebel86

But Radiohead’s first two albums also come from a previous generation, when the entire body of indie music fans were less pretentious and narcissistic.

Wait, the small group of elitist record-store employees who all said that everything they listen to is better than anything you'd listen to were far less pretentious than the large indie audience today?

Re: Their First Two Albums Were Better

Yeah. High Fidelity was written in '95, like.

Thing is, the first big breakthrough album brings a band's audience together. From there, regardless of whether that audience keeps growing, it can only fracture. No matter where you go from where you started, you can't keep them all happy.

And yeah, bands do run out of steam, they do get too comfortable, and they do lose sight of what made them great over time. It might be a clichéd idea, but the mercilessly darwinian business of trying to make a great song through shitty instruments is pretty unforgiving - I find it easy to believe that all the money and production luxuries a budding band is suddenly learning to play with can make the process of honing the actual song to a sharpened point feel a bit less urgent.

Besides which, yeah, you've got your whole life to write your first album. You've got whatever didn't make that cut to make your second. Then you've got to go write your third album under the weight of your own reputation and under the eyes of Stereogum etc.